In starting this blog, I must first apologise for having more questions than answers. Its a process of mine. I question just about everything. I even question the answers that I get from previous questions. Its a tedious habit that I picked up God knows when! Its also exhausting!! Can you imagine constantly having questions even when the answer is staring you right in the face?
Granted my questions are not as deep or philosophical as other peoples, but what they lack in 'quality' they make up for in 'quantity'. Sometimes the answers I get are satisfactory and as a result my follow- up is minimal. Sometimes even the provision on indisputable evidence is not enough for me. Sometimes I question if I am even asking the right questions.
I'm told that through research, you gain evidence to either support or dispute a claim. This is the answer then: research - evidence, right? But how do you research something as objective as human emotion and behaviour? Do past behaviours consistute research? Can't people change? I like to believe that we can. That through conscious effort, we are able to change. If this is true then a person's past behaviour is surely not gonna produce a reliable result.
The other confusing element is whether 'research' is somehow affected by time and circumstance. So if person A robbed a bank today - then he is a thief. But what if his circumstance today was more conducive than it would be in a week's time, would he still rob the bank next week? Maybe the opportunity presented itself today - there was no security guard or he was in desperate need of money right now. If he waited a week and the guard had been there and he won the lotto, he would not have had the opportunity to rob the bank. Do we label person A in week's time as a 'non- thief'? What if he never robs another bank? Is he a thief forever? If a husband cheats on his wife once and never again a cheater forever? There is evidence of the act - no doubt - but does evidence of one act make you something forever? I hope not, but in more severe cases like muder, it takes only one murder to be a murderer forever. So is the scale? Do we only judge severe acts forever and not minor ones? Who's to judge what is severe and minor anyway?
See....I told you, more questions than answers?
Which brings me to why I have started this blog - made to believe??. Its the question I have on my mind a lot lately, are we made to believe as in we can be convinced provided there is evidence? or are we made to believe in that we are born as optimistic people who are here to believe regardless of proof?
